Abortion Kills More Than Babies - It Kills A Decent Society

OUR VIEWS

Is what is aborted a human being or not a human being? That's the key question in the abortion debate. If what is killed is nonhuman, then abortion has no more moral significance than an appendectomy.

But the answer is obvious. What dies in an abortion is a human being. It is to avoid this obvious fact that proponents of killing for convenience create so many side issues and obfuscations.

What happens if there is no abortion? What emerges from the womb? A goat? A frog? No, a baby. Popular language often speaks more truth than formal rhetoric. What do women say? They say, ''I don't want to have a baby.'' They don't say, ''I don't want a fetus'' or ''I don't want a pregnancy.'' And what are the big financiers of the abortion movement concerned about? Fish control? Bird control? No, they speak always in terms of human population control. In other words, they want fewer humans.

Because what is aborted is undoubtedly a human being, abortion is then a moral question. Under what conditions is it permissible to kill a human being? Normally, the only justification is self-defense or the defense of another innocent life. In the case of capital punishment, the second justification is vengeance for the taking of an innocent human life.

So, is a baby a threat to human life? In rare instances, the birth process may threaten the life of the mother. Has the baby committed any heinous crimes? No.

Therefore, I personally conclude that abortion is never justified. In those rare instances in which the mother's life is threatened, it is threatened not by the baby but by the mother's condition.

But the bulk of abortions have nothing to do with preventing the loss of the mother's life. The majority of the time, a baby is aborted because someone considers the child an inconvenient life. To kill people for the sake of mere convenience is morally wrong. Period.

What about the case in which pre-birth, diagnostic techniques indicate the baby will be deformed or suffer some other birth defect? Well, you can follow the logic of the Nazis, if you wish. Their first ''scientific'' killings were of people they decided were hopelessly insane or otherwise unable to function.

It was my impression that most people found that obnoxious, but if there is a new rise in the popularity of Nazi philosophy in the United States then, by all means, let's call it by its right name. After all, more humane people need to be warned that there are dangerous people among us, masquerading under false colors. The example of history teaches that, once killing-as-therapy becomes acceptable, a lot more people than the hopelessly insane get classified as ''unacceptable'' and, therefore, are deserving of death.

And you do see several signs of the

re-emergence of Nazi thought. The political correctness movement, for example, which seeks to punish people for what they think and say. The practice of silencing speakers with whom one disagrees, which the leftists in America adopted during the 1960s. Elevating thuggery to political action is the essence of the Nazi philosophy.

You should remember that Nazis were leftists. Only the communists, a rival group of thugs, called them rightists. The Nazis were national socialists; the communists, were international socialists, but they were both socialists.

Call me an old fogey if you wish, but I will take my stand with the ancient tradition of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples who gave birth to the American form of government. They loved life, and they loved liberty.

Each and every life is sacred. Liberty means the freedom to think and to speak whether or not what one thinks or speaks is politically correct.

Abortion aborts far more than the lives of innocent children. It aborts a decent society. It creates a society of killers-for-profit, bullies, victims and cowards.